3 ms·

>even if you trust the merchant not to defraud you I understand that your point is to do with personal choice, and being able to navigate pros and cons oneself

>even if you trust the merchant not to defraud you I understand that your point is to do with personal choice, and being able to navigate pros and cons oneself, so I'm not exactly contradicting anything you said; but after an experience I had with Best Buy a couple of years ago, I wouldn't trust any business not to defraud me (or at least, not to put me in a position where I need to dispute a charge). I ordered a Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra for delivery from them. When I received the package, it was an S22 Plus instead. I explained the situation to their customer service, who told me to ship it back to them for a refund. Then they shipped it right back to me, with a note saying that they couldn't accept the return because it was the wrong item. (Yes, because they shipped me the wrong item! That was the point!) I don't think Best Buy was intentionally trying to defraud me -- it was presumably just crossed wires on their end -- but a credit card dispute saved me a lot of aggravation, and perhaps money. My credit card company informed me that when they reached out to Best Buy to get their side of the story, they just repeated that I'd returned the wrong item. Since I'd already explained that to the credit card company, they understood that wasn't a satisfactory explanation, and resolved the dispute in my favor.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> after an experience I had with Best Buy a couple of years ago, I wouldn't trust any business not to defraud me (or at least, not to put me in a position where I need to dispute a charge). I wonder if that's really true. Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years. You're not even expecting anything in return and the charity is operated by your best friend who would refund the money if you simply asked. Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used. Also, if there are problems you might not discover them within the chargeback window anyway. Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money. Do you really need a percentage to go to a payment processor and to pay higher prices to cover chargeback fraud just to buy the ability to do a chargeback in these cases? Meanwhile Best Buy would still accept Visa but the price to use it would be a few percent higher than the alternative and then you get to decide if you want to pay extra for the insurance or not.
- eurleif 2y ago
  >Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years. A charity isn't a business, so I don't think this is relevant to my statement. >Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used. A contract is a two-way street. If the seller didn't hold up their end because the car isn't as described, then in fact I don't owe them money. That fact isn't made true by going to court; it's already true, and the court determines it to be so. A chargeback doesn't "get you out of the contract", but it can be a method of enforcing your pre-existing legal right not to pay without having to spend time in court. It can mean that I don't "have to sue them" to be made whole. The situation you described with a car isn't particularly different from my situation with Best Buy. The phone wasn't as described, so Best Buy wasn't legally entitled to my money. I enforced my legal right to the money via a chargeback, which was much easier than enforcing it via a lawsuit. >Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money. This is your strongest example, but I can think of circumstances where it would break down. For example, suppose the cafe promised a lactose-free meal, and I later experience unmistakable symptoms from lactose intolerance. Then this is largely analogous to my Best Buy situation.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> after an experience I had with Best Buy a couple of years ago, I wouldn't trust any business not to defraud me (or at least, not to put me in a position where I need to dispute a charge). I wonder if that's really true. Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years. You're not even expecting anything in return and the charity is operated by your best friend who would refund the money if you simply asked. Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used. Also, if there are problems you might not discover them within the chargeback window anyway. Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money. Do you really need a percentage to go to a payment processor and to pay higher prices to cover chargeback fraud just to buy the ability to do a chargeback in these cases? Meanwhile Best Buy would still accept Visa but the price to use it would be a few percent higher than the alternative and then you get to decide if you want to pay extra for the insurance or not.

eurleif 2y ago
>Suppose you're making a modest monetary donation to a charity you've been volunteering at for years. A charity isn't a business, so I don't think this is relevant to my statement. >Suppose you're buying a car. You've signed a contract to buy it and owe the money regardless of which payment method you now use for the down payment. Doing a chargeback doesn't get you out of the contract. If the car isn't as described you would have to sue them and then if you won the court would order them to refund your money regardless of which payment method you used. A contract is a two-way street. If the seller didn't hold up their end because the car isn't as described, then in fact I don't owe them money. That fact isn't made true by going to court; it's already true, and the court determines it to be so. A chargeback doesn't "get you out of the contract", but it can be a method of enforcing your pre-existing legal right not to pay without having to spend time in court. It can mean that I don't "have to sue them" to be made whole. The situation you described with a car isn't particularly different from my situation with Best Buy. The phone wasn't as described, so Best Buy wasn't legally entitled to my money. I enforced my legal right to the money via a chargeback, which was much easier than enforcing it via a lawsuit. >Suppose you're paying for lunch at a cafe. You've already eaten the food by the time the check comes. You know whether you were satisfied with it or not before you transfer the money. This is your strongest example, but I can think of circumstances where it would break down. For example, suppose the cafe promised a lactose-free meal, and I later experience unmistakable symptoms from lactose intolerance. Then this is largely analogous to my Best Buy situation.